Maintaining An Aggressive Posture Is The Key To WSU's Offense In 2011
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 1, 2011 12:03 AM PDT
in 2011 WSU Football News
Email
Print
Through two years and three games, no WSU football fan would have used the word "bold" to describe the play calling style of offensive coordinator Todd Sturdy.
There were times in 2008 when we wondered if the team was even trying to score, as WSU saw its long consecutive game scoring streak come to an end. In 2009, Sturdy compensated for a sieve of an offensive line by keeping in extra blockers, such as running backs and tight ends, who were predictably terrible at trying to stop defensive ends.
The first three games of 2010 brought more of the same: Power formations with Jeff Tuel directly under center. Paul Wulff has made no secret of his desire to have a balanced attack, and Sturdy carried out that directive to a T, as WSU actually had more rushes than passes through the first three games, despite averaging just a smidge over 3.0 yards per carry in that time.
After going 1-2 with a squeaker of a win over Montana State, something had to change. And against USC, it did.
To everyone's surprise -- probably most notably Monte Kiffin -- tthe Cougars came out winging the ball all over the field. Rather than try and slow down the USC pass rush with more blockers, WSU put more receivers into patterns, using zone routes to attack Kiffin's famous Cover 2. After running on 55 percent of plays in the first three games, that figure dropped to 25.5 percent against the Trojans.
The overall numbers will tell you the offense was no more successful against USC than it was against the previous opponents -- averaging just 4.8 yards per play, much worse than the 5.7 it posted against SMU the week before with the power formations.
However, overall stats don't always tell the whole story. The numbers were much better in the first half until Kiffin and his superior athletes adjusted. And for the first time, there was some legitimate excitement about what we were seeing on the field -- this was something that could be built on.
The offense was still hit and miss the rest of the year, but Sturdy's bold move to completely revamp the offense in a week was a move that allowed WSU to hang with Oregon for three quarters, eventually paid off with the Cougars' first Pac-10 win in nearly two years, and also very nearly led to a victory in the Apple Cup.
The key players in that attack -- Tuel, Marquess Wilson and Jared Karstetter -- all return in 2011, and Sturdy would do well to keep the same aggressive posture with the passing game. The ability of the offensive line to shove defenses around is still highly questionable, and the tight ends are an unknown quantity outside of Andrei Lintz, who was hardly a game breaker last year.
But the receivers have a tremendous amount of depth, and Tuel is expert at making quick decisions and delivering an accurate ball. Continuing to put the ball in his hands as much as possible is this team's best strategy for scoring points going forward.
-----
Want more? Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really don't see
any way that we go back to the “Power I” offenses of 08 and 09.
I think the key to this year on offense is running for at least 3.6ypc to keep defenses somewhat honest.
If they stuck with it for 2 1/4 years
Don’t you think that’s eventually what they want to get back to?
question for CougCenter.
I don’t know any other way to contact you.. I have been admonished to hit “reply” button when responding to a post. That’s what I have been doing. Then often what comes up is the box that I have to agree to the community guidelines to post. I hit “agree,” then it says “you are already a member.” So it isn’t clear cut that the “reply” button works easily. My first try already has been to hit the reply button.
I've never seen that...
Could you be getting temporarily banned?
by Samsinite on Jul 1, 2011 10:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Not until we have the horses to block
I expect more of what we saw in the 2nd half of last year coming in 2011. I would be very surprised if they think they can be successful with the 08 and 09 schemes.
by B-Lot tailgater on Jul 1, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think that is what they want to get back to.
Since they have come here they have talked about implementing a no huddle spread offense. I think they didn’t implement it this year because of some poor thinking process. Jeff Tuel (and every other qb) was getting murdered before they could even look at his reads. To counteract this, they tried using more tight ends, fullbacks and blockers to help give the QBs time. Not a terrible strategy, except that we couldn’t handle any individual member of an opposing defense with our lines. So instead of giving our QBs more time, we just took away some of their reads and extended the time they had to be in the pocket. What we should have done was spread out the defense and use quick routes to slow the pass rush. When we did this against USC, the results finally began to look promising.
Wulff and Sturdy would be fools among morons if they went back to a power base formation. We are finally seeing legitimate offensive production, and it is poised to be better this year.
by Fightfightfight on Jul 1, 2011 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
No.
EWUs offense under Wulff and Sturdy was a spread based attack. They weren’t wed to any particular formation, from my understanding, but spread principles, and primarily out of the gun.
I think they wanted to implement that when they got to WSU, but the players, for whatever reason, weren’t getting it quickly enough. They wen’t to the Power I based offense because of personnel in an effort to “K.I.S.S.”, and to try and run out the clock so our thin, small, slow defense wasn’t on the field as much.
I think that was more about holding ground, making blocks, making tackles
and making plays, but I can see what you mean.
Spreads are considered “finesse” football, but I can’t imagine him imploring them to “Be Finesse!”
I do think Wulff (and/or Sturdy) is enamored with running the ball for its own sake.
You can look at the ypp/ypc ratio last year to see that. But I don’t think that’s wedded to power formations and Big10 type football.
Physical is a vague term.
It does not necessarily denote a power formation. Football is a game where every player must be physical and rough at every position in every formation. The spread gets the nod as being a non-physical formation because spreading out the field and forming space that way as opposed fighting for the space the defender already occupies. However, regardless of formation a block needs to be a physical, dominating block. A running back must still be physical and able to break tackles. A QB needs to be able to pull out of a hand tackle and keep his form together. When Wulff says he wants a physical team with physical players, that is what I imagine.
by Fightfightfight on Jul 1, 2011 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
we must run the ball.
I agree that we did open up the offense, to some good effect. We didnt “hang with Oregon for 3 quarters.” Oregon mailed in the game. They could have scored 80 if they wanted to. We got 2 cheap touchdowns late to make the Stanford score look better.
—I ‘ve been following foootball for a long time. If a team has to throw the ball more than 35 or so times/game, they lose. WSU has put up 500 yards passing and still lost. We must run the ball for 150-200 yards/game. If that can come out of shotgun, fine. Running does so much good: takes so much pressure off the QB, takes the opposing crowd out of the game on the road, controls the clock and generates first downs, is good in bad weather, and keeps the defense off the field. any number of WSU coaches have paid lip service to running the ball in the past. but haven’t meant it. I think it’s crucial. -
"We didnt 'hang with Oregon for 3 quarters.' Oregon mailed in the game."
I call BS. Even if Oregon didn’t bring their “A” game, how often did teams not bring their “A” game the previous two years and still obliterate us? If you want to look for the rain in every sunny day, be my guest. But to say the Cougars didn’t step up in that game and play well is ignorant.
reply to cougcenter
I don;t believe that i am “looking for the rain in every sunny day.” I just want some objective, hard analysis. Obejctively, this team has been pathetic for 3 years, and quite possible the worst team in Pac10 history. I have seen many times that a team has one year to spring some upsets. Everybody gets excited, then the next season their record may well be worse. Why? Because the other teams then actually bring their A game.
—So many Cougar fans just make stuff up. We dismiss and diminish our opponents, then when we lose our fans are upset and surprised. . Many people are somehow convinced that Utah will collapse under the strain of the Pac12 schedule. We overlook Utah at our peril. No way should we pencil in SanDiego State as a win. Another good team. . I thinkwe will beat ISU and UNLV. Beyond that, I have no idea. I am looking for wins on the field, period. Every Pac12 game is one we should take very seriously and not assume any wins. I admire your work on this site and I like the fact that you reply quickly. Much better service than another site.
"I just want some objective, hard analysis"
I thought that’s what we were providing. Things like this. And this. Sorry we’re not meeting your needs, but I challenge you to find that elsewhere.
As for your second point, I’m pretty sure you’re confusing the fans who frequent CougCenter with fans who frequent other sites. I believe most of our commenters are pretty balanced. I read every comment left at this site, and I don’t recall our readers making the statements you’re referencing.
You don't need to put "reply to cougcenter" in the subject line.
You’re not replying to CougCenter, you’re replying to Nusser. Just put the first sentence of what you’re going to say in the body in the subject line.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jul 1, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
the first sentence of what you're trying to say in the body
Did I get it?
by Fractal on Jul 1, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There is no way any Wulff era team has been the worst in Pac-12 history
If you want to look at it objectively, the 2008 Washington squad was clearly worse. Also, see Oregon State in the 1980s.
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Jul 1, 2011 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
oh please
the 2008 Cougs were worse than the 2008 Huskies, despite beating them.
Yes, but that's SUBJECTIVE
Objectively, based on record, the Cougars were better. That’s what’s being asked of this site after all…being objective. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I agree, the Huskies were better. There’s no way they should’ve lost every game that year.
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Jul 1, 2011 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions
There's actually no subjectivity to it
I could trot out a dozen different objective metrics — other than that one head-to-head win — that conclude, without a doubt, that the 2008 Cougars were worse.
I agree - Much worse
Has there ever been a football team from a major conference that had so many opponents putting in so many 3rd/4th string players in the game so early?
During the USC game, I almost felt bad for them because it seemed like they were doing everything short of tying their shoelaces together to slow down the whooping we were getting. Remember them taking a knee at halftime when they were in scoring position?
The 08 Cougs were really, really, really bad. The 2009 Cougs were a bit better but were plagued by a ridiculous amount of injuries. The 2010 Cougs were an even bigger improvement but I got the sense that the first part of the season was more about building some kind of foundation for the rest of the season. We were still outgunned though, and the record showed it.
Looking forward to 2011. Should be a big W/L improvement if we can stay healthy.
by All Cougar all the time on Jul 2, 2011 5:46 AM PDT up reply actions
The 1980 and 1981 Oregon State teams were really bad...really, really bad.
They might have been the two worst teams I’ve ever seen. It was a different era, but those teams were so bad they were losing to Long Beach State…at home…by 10. They were beat down by the 1981 Oregon team…which was also a horrible team (the only other win for the Ducks that year was against Pacific…early 80s football at both Oregon schools was not good). The positive from that is both programs eventually turned things around, and quite nicely.
The 2008 Cougs were definitely awful, and probably the worst P10 team since the 85 scholarship limit, but there have been comparable teams in terms of awfulness over the last 30 years, we just don’t remember them.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
Could be
But if you want a taste of how historically bad those 08 and 09 teams were, here’s a place to start.
I suppose I should have clarified...
The comment asked had there ever been a major college team that had so many opponents playing deep back-ups and my recollection is that those awful OSU teams, especially in the early 80s, saw lots of backups. And those 80 and 81 teams stick out as the worst I have seen (although I forgot about Northwestern, a program that redefined awful during that same time).
Statistically, the Cougs may have been worse, but backups got a lot of playing time against the Beavs in those days.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace
Good point - not sure WSU has sunk to 80's Beaver levels
I remember those years fondly as a young man who was still entertaining options of attending UW, WSU and UO
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Jul 2, 2011 12:15 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This comment is .....
Don’t comment often but this poster got my dander up. Having been around football for 40 years including some coaching this Oregon game was different. Sure they lost, but it was the first time in 2 1/2 years they were punching players in the mouth every play. They were flat laying people out including the ambulance ending up on the field (scary moment). That attitude carried out the rest of the season except at ASU. I still see Mizell(sp) throwing Rogers into the third row, penalty yes, nasty defensive attitude hell ya.
As for running the football previous two years, possibly to eat up clock? When you don’t have the horses you do what you can to minimize damage.
Running is good taking away crowds out of game. It’s also good for closing out games to eat up clock. Offense needs to be balanced and hopefully this year we can pass to set up the run vs run to set up the pass.
by bv eburg on Jul 2, 2011 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
what I meant by balanced
Is it’s preferable to be able to both run and pass well. How the run/pass split ends up is not as important because the defense is always off balance. This team with the depth at receiver and a hopefully healthy Tuel you would think lean more towards the pass than run.
There is a difference
between playing well and not playing terribly.
Yes, they played better, but WSU was never in a position to win that game.
by B-Lot tailgater on Jul 1, 2011 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess you can mince words if you want to
But they were a Jeff Tuel interception away from being within a TD heading into the 4th quarter. The results speak for themselves.
The game is 4 quarters long
WSU only played three that day. Similar story with the UCLA game.
Both ended in double digit losses.
by B-Lot tailgater on Jul 1, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Oregon refocused after the Wilson dropped pass.
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Jul 3, 2011 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Ya it is crucial, but when you don't have it, you can't use it.
That was the point.
You may think rushing is important in college football, but the trend is leaning towards passing. Look at the NFL.
The the #1 offensive team in the NFL last year was #1 in passing and #28 in rushing. I know the Saints got beat by the Seahawks, but they still were a playoff team.
O ya, the Packers, who were #4 in total offense were #5 in passing and #24 in rushing. Don’t the Packers play in bad weather?
I also think a 60 yard bomb down the field takes the opposing crowd out of the game. (e.g.- Brady, Manning, Brees, A.Rodgers)
"Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back"
As TiltingRight pointed out above
The key is the yard per carry average. I know this is an extreme example, but Texas Tech only rushed for about 115 yards per game in 2008, a season in which they were 11-2. The important thing is that they were at 4.8 ypc.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 1, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Ya a lot of time your YPC
can be good if you throw all the time and have a decent line, because the defense is thinking throw. Also, comparing a Leach offense to a Sturdy offense is just not fair. I went and watched some TT highlights on youtube and I started dreaming of seeing him run our offense with the receiver core we have. Leach did have some big nastiest on the OL.
"Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back"
That's what I mean
As long as you can keep them honest and rip off enough decent runs, you can throw the ball all over the field and be successful.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 1, 2011 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think Rickey Galvin
will help this area this year (Hopefully). Even if our line is bad, he may small enough that he can hide behind the lineman and burst out into decent runs. A la Jacquizz Rodgers.
"Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back"
A team with a good YPC has less "work" to do to get to the first down.
Then a team with a bad-horrible YPC
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Jul 3, 2011 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
If I recall
Hawai’i has been successful for years under June Jones and their new coach (whose name escapes me) by primarily throwing the ball and throwing it often. I obviously don’t have the numbers in the front of me but if that offense threw the ball less than 70% if the time, I’d be shocked
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Jul 1, 2011 9:10 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Greg McMackin
former Seahawk defensive coordinator!
by Kyle Rancourt on Jul 1, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I can always count on you Kyle
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Jul 1, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
The notion of building off the run
is no longer a football truth. In fact, for schools like WSU, it can be downright crippling. Scheming rushing yards is extremely difficult to do. If your lineman cannot physically handle moving D Lineman around and cannot get to the second level, your running game will be consistently terrible. In fact, once teams know that you can’t handle them physically, then all the advantages of “keeping the defense honest” go away. The defense will play whatever scheme they want because they KNOW that you will not break one rushing the ball. All the backs on our teams these last years could be caught from behind by most defenders even if they did squirt through the line.
The other thing to think about is why running the ball is crucial. Is a yard gained on the ground worth more than one gained through the air? Fantasy football would have you believe so, but the fact is they do not. The best running backs in the world average 5 yds per rush. The worst quarterbacks in the world average 5 yds/a. If your QB is halfway decent, then a pass will always be more valuable in terms of yardage and scoring than a run.
Being able to run the ball is a good thing, but it is hardly the foundation of a modern offense. It is great for killing the clock and for getting those last couple of yards, but on 90% of snaps a run will net you less expected gain than a pass.
by Fightfightfight on Jul 1, 2011 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
reply to firefight
hmm. You just said that if the defense knows that our OL can’t handle them physically, then our running game will be consistently terrible. True. The defense wil play whatever scheme they want because they KNOW we can’t run the ball. True. Precisely the problem…we don’t fool anybody with our offense because the defense knows we have to pass. They can just tee off on the QB.
—Why did we beat OSU? Because we could run the ball some (even if it was Tuel doing most of the running) and they couldn’t just tee off. OSU’s defense was confused. I don’t have the stats for the game, but I think it was the fewest passes we threw all year. The passing game was much more efficient because we weren’t FORCED to pass.
They did tee off
That’s how Tuel carried the ball 18 times and racked up so many yards. Nearly all of those runs were the result of scrambling on designed passes.
Just ticking off runs in a box score won't tell you what happened in that game
Tuel ran for his life as Oregon State pressured him. Because Oregon State teed-off, running lanes opened, allowing him to escape pressure and run like hell. WSU didn’t win the game because it came in hell-bent on running. WSU won the game because Tuel improvised, along with a variety of other factors.
Like, for example, WSU running 73 plays to OSU's 48
It was just a weird, weird game, and — as I wrote after the game — a fluke in the sense that it’s just not the sort of performance you expect to repeat.
Big picture, I get that it’s an example of what a strong running game can do, if you put aside the manner in which it happened. But so few teams in college football are able to run like that with any kind of consistency, that I think it’s foolish to say that we “have” to be able to run like that. You just don’t see that anymore from pretty much anyone.
The only offense in the conference that comes to mind
when I think about running is Oregon, but they have a quirky offense. USC it pretty balanced, but a few years back they had such talented running backs and lineman that they couldn’t be stopped. The only time I see a lot of running now in college is if you have a super talented QB (Cam Newton) or a stud running back (Jordan Polk/Javid Best).
"Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back"
As Nuss mentioned
It’s not about gross yards per game, it’s about yards per play. If we gained 150 yards on 35 carries, we’re going to get our butts handed to us.
This site advances the idea that balance isn’t about a 1-3 or 1-1 run/pass yardage ratio or any type of gross measurement, but on a per play basis. He makes the case that there should be a “pass premium” of about a yard (give or take) per pass (to counteract higher likelihood of turnover), but otherwise, the yards per pass/yards per run should be equal if you’re looking for a “balanced” attack.
in respect to your advertisers
Bikini girls drinking Nestea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung’d
by BigWood! on Jul 1, 2011 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I'll be sure to let them know.
What if it was a girl in a bikini watching TV?
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 1, 2011 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Hopefully...
The offense looked pretty good at the end of last year so it would be my guess that they have the same game plan for the season opener. Hopefully for the ground game, the offensive line has either vastly improved, or the coordinators have looked into some alternative blocking schemes.
No no no.
I want at least one. FLEA FLICKER. Then we can go back to running the ball.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jul 1, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Kristoff Williams did play QB in high school.
Like Jeffrey Solomon. Look out.
"Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back"
Solomon to Karstetter to give the Cougs a 7-0 lead vs. USC last year
Sure it quickly dissolved but that was AWESOME!
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Jul 1, 2011 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
That play was funny.
It didn’t really work all that well in the sense that it should have (a receiver being wide open because USC was fooled). There was a guy on Karstetter, Solomon just threw the ball up and let Jared jump over the defender.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
I am looking forward to see what Ricky Galvin will do to our run game.
"Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back"
All discussion and arguing aside.
The Cougs have never lost a Pac-12 game and I am extremely excited and hopeful for the upcoming season!
Ted Bundy was a Husky.
Has Wulff ever mentioned anything about getting the backs more involved in the passing game?
Montgomery was serviceable (when healthy) as a receiver, but the offense was so strongly limited by the style and ability of the RBs that I never got a good sense if that was something the coaches were pushing. I love Mitz as a power back, but I really hope Galvin can provide a productive receiving option out of the backfield.
In short, no.
Not if they still plan on running out 10 and 20 personnel packages. Sending backs into the route consistently is a death wish.
I guess I meant receiving option from the RB position, not "out of the backfield" per se
In my head I was thinking of someone like Galvin playing in the slot occasionally to add a wrinkle to the offense. Of course, it’s hard to find a back with the skill set necessary to do it, but it can be very stressful to defenses if done well. It seems like they’re still trying to find a viable TE, and if they do, I think this is a possibility (running out of 11 or 21 packages). I don’t know if Galvin has these skills or not – I suppose that is my question.
wow i hope this is not a plan
i’d much prefer having a couple of effective TEs
The adjustment made for the SC game
was made at halftime against MSU. It was the first time I gave Sturdy props. And the first time I had any hope he could make in game adjustments. By the end of the season I actually had reason to believe he could run an O at this level….
Shh, don’t remind me that we shouldn’t have had to make any adjustments to beat MSU….this is a happy full of hope post….
Nestea time!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
Related FanShots on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
